March 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Frustrating...
by Steven_M._Riley＠aep.com 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

Can we get back to the good stuff, please? I joined this list because it seemed like a great place to learn some the thorny technical stuff that keeps the Internet going. Now all I get all day are mails from people complaining about this and that and the other thing. I've given up reading the "Domain rant" thread -- I just delete them all. I miss the technical stuff.

2 1

Re: Domain Rant.
by Vadim Antonov 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

So far, that sounds like nice basis for a class action lawsuit. Imagine a land title company throwing away records just because they lost a payment receipt. That's what InterNIC is doing. My experience with InterNIC was that i managed to get hold of actual person, and got assurances that everything's ok. Then i see nothing happened in the database, so i call again, and they tell the information "is not there yet". Now, i go to the automatic system and make a card payment -- the system gives back authorization code, etc. Guess what. It still says the domain registration is not paid. I think it is time ISPs take the matter in their hands. I.e. let ISPs to perform registrations. Root serer operators can ensure uniqueness just fine. --vadim

11 14

MAE West
by Rodney Joffe 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

Does anyone have any idea if there's something *bad* going on at MAE West? Half our peers are down.... Rodney Joffe Chief Plumber Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net

2 1

omnibus Domain Rant
by Paul A Vixie 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

Here's your chance. You've been complaining about this thread. Hit D now. > There has already been one Sherman Act related lawsuit filed. Collude with > others and RICO gets added to the mix. You must be referring to http://namespace.autono.net/ns./litigation_cont.html. I'm not a judge or jury or even a lawyer, but this suit looks pretty weak to me -- eventually GSA would have to be named as a codefendant and that's not going to work. This too, shall pass. >> Giving me money is no guarantee of polite treatment. I do the right thing, >> money or no money. The funny thing is, people keep giving me money anyway. > >A slight correction: You do what *you think* is the right thing. The difference only matters if you don't trust your own judgement or you accept a higher moral authority than yourself. In the case of DNS I have subjected my moral judgement to the review of people I respect, and have honed it according to the feedback. I'm not aware of a higher authority. >What's necessary is preventing the elimination of free market selection. And I suppose that we ought to allow the free market to allocate radio frequency spectrum as well. And if you don't like the TV station that is now broadcasting where the CB radios you've been selling also operate, then I guess the market just got less free. And if you don't like the fact that your phone number has been allocated to other people by several local phone companies, then I guess one of those phone companies will achieve some kind of ascendancy and the ones who "mis-"allocated "your" phone numbers will eventually stop doing that or go out of business. In this crowd I'm probably the expert on economic theory, weak though I am on the subject. And a free market requires some basic rules. Unique spectrum allocations backed by the force of law don't constrain the size of the market or its freedom, in fact it is the only way to prevent monopoly forces from squeezing out the little guy. The so-called eDNS allocation scheme is not workable for at least two reasons: someone else will start pDNS and allocate from _their_ version of "." if they think they can "compete"; and, the second level players are not required to cooperate for the greater good of the end users. We have a coherent "." right now, and we're going to continue to have one, and its owners will be subject to the rule of law and to the administration of representatives of the user population. Right now that's IETF/IANA. In the future it will be IAHC/CORE/etc. eDNS does not qualify and is a nonstarter. >Can you point me to a nice summary of the IAHC proposal? And your plan for >things if it stalls? http://www.iahc.org/ has their proposal, as well as background materials like searchable mailing list archives and some historical documents. My plan for things if IAHC stalls is to call folks I know at the various large ISP's and say "if you think ARIN was a good idea, you ain't seen nothin' yet". Ultimately the people who own the gold, make the rules. In civilized countries, everything happens through a government agency who owns the ISO3166 two-letter country code top level domain, and they ignore all of this three- letter silliness. In the US, the government ignores everything we do and we all seem strangely pleased by this, and we hardly use .US at all, preferring to pollute the worldwide name space with our petty desires for short names.

1 0

Fwd: master "spam remove" list?
by Vince Fuller 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

Has anyone else received this? Is it legit or is it yet another dishonest attempt by spammers to improve the quality of their mailing lists? I very much suspect the former as I doubt that spammers pay much attention to "remove" lists. --Vince --------------- Received: from hq.barrnet.net (hq.barrnet.net [204.160.73.5]) by valinor.barrnet.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with ESMTP id CAA15241 for <vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net>; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 02:31:46 -0800 Received: from netchem.com ([205.246.66.97]) by hq.barrnet.net (8.7.5/HQ-Len-1.1) with ESMTP id CAA08490 for <vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net>; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 02:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from danw@localhost) by netchem.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA20879 for vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 05:39:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 05:39:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703211339.FAA20879(a)netchem.com> From: remove(a)netchem.com Subject: Please Help Yourself, Help Others & Help the Internet Apparently-To: <vaf(a)valinor.barrnet.net> Dear Sir/Madam, Your email address is on many spammers' lists. That is why you received so much junk email lately. Most of the spammers will stop sending you junk email if you ask them to remove your email address from their lists. But the problem is that there are too many spammers. The spammers are not supposed to send you junk email in the first place. Why do you even have to spend your time to reply? We are compiling a REMOVE list. It is much faster for the spammers to remove your email address if we send them the list because most of the spammers use automated software. To add your name to the REMOVE list, simply reply to this email. You do not have to write anything. It is FREE! We are also compiling a blacklist of spammers. If you receive junk email from someone, please forward the original message to list(a)netchem.com. Please do not use spammers to advertise your product on the Internet. It is not easy to send out 1 million email. The spammer will take your money and disappear. To avoid further spamming, we send out this message only to limited number of users. Please forward this email to your friends if you think it is useful to them. Sincerely, Jerry ------------------------------------------------- Jerry Wang, PhD, Chemechanics, Inc. http://www.netchem.com, mailto:jerryw@netchem.com -------------------------------------------------

3 2

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

1 0

Re: Domain Rant.
by NetSurfer 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

The following is from Computer Reseller News, 720 dated 1/20/97, page 7: "Vars Concerned over IP Payment Plan", by Sam Masud, Washington ... 8< snip "The registry would have ISP's pay annual fees between $2,000 and $20,000, depending on the amount of IP space bought. Web site owvers would be slapped with a one-time fee of $2,500 to $10,000.. Network Solutions Inc., a vendor charged with allocating Internet addresses through a division called InterNIC, said the registry proposal is up for comment but could be implemented within three to six months following discussion." ... I did NOT make this up or base it on unsubstantiated rumor. ---------- From: Steve Kann <stevek(a)SteveK.COM> To: NetSurfer <netsurf(a)pixi.com> Subject: Re: Domain Rant. Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 7:36 AM NetSurfer writes: > > If you think $50 is bad, just wait and see if the $20,000/year/domain goes > through... Please stop spreading vicous unsubstantiated rumors, Mr. NetSurfer. No one has proposed any "$20,000/year/domain" charges. > #include <standard.disclaimer> > _ __ __ _____ ____ > / | / /__ / /_/ ___/__ _______/ __/__ _____ > / |/ / _ \/ __/\__ \/ / / / ___/ /_/ _ \/ ___/ > / /| / __/ /_ ___/ / /_/ / / / __/ __/ / > ================/_/=|_/\___/\__//____/\__,_/_/==/_/==\___/_/=============== BTW: It is customary to prefix signatures with the string "\n-- \n", such that mail user agents can skip over them. Unless, of course, that cool banner is part of your content. ----- 8< snip Fixed - thanks!

4 3

Re: root-server envy, racketeering, and black helicopters.
by Gregory Hersh 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

Add the discussion on T1 utilization ...

1 0

NSI hit with suit
by Mark Boolootian 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

>From C|Net <http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,9006,00.html>: Network Solutions hit with suit By Margie Wylie March 20, 1997, 3:45 p.m. PT [...] PGP Media this morning filed a suit in a New York court alleging that the partially government-funded Network Solutions has conspired with several other Internet groups to set up artificial barriers to competition in the selling of Internet domain names and maintain monopoly control of the market. The International Ad Hoc Committee, the Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA) and its director, Jon Postel, the Internet Society (ISOC), and unnamed "control persons" are named as "nonparty coconspirators" in the complaint. According to the complaint, which has not yet been formally served on Network Solutions, the company is using its historical control of Internet "root servers" to preclude competition in domain name service. Root servers are computers that act like switchboard operators, matching up familiar network names, like "cnet.com" with the location of that Net resource, like a Web site, email server, or gopher server. [...] PGP Media's own domain naming service, called name.space, can't operate on the Internet without access to the config file on the Internet's official root servers. The company is asking that the court force Network Solutions to list name.space's top-level domains, such as ".camera," in the official root servers in addition to minimum damages of $1 million.

1 0

RE: Domain Rant.
by Jerry Eyers 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

Not necessarily a massive cooperation of everyone. but at least a few. Seems to me you could find some folks would be interested in approaching that. Jerry Jerry Eyers U Psalms 46:1 >---------- >From: Alex Rubenstein[SMTP:alex@nac.net] >Sent: Thursday, March 20, 1997 7:47 PM >To: Karl Denninger >Cc: Paul A Vixie; nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Domain Rant. > >> > >> > Because there can be only one authority for ".". > >I don't agree with this. > >It is quite possible for everyone to maintain ".". Then, there would be no >need for root domain servers; HOWEVER, this would take massive cooperation >throughout the industy, which will never happen. > > > >

1 0